IFMA Sustainability | SFP (Sustainable Facilities Professional) Certification Rollout

This year the San Francisco chapter of IFMA launched a major new initiative on Sustainability, including additional skill elements for the CFM certification and a new Sustainable Facilities The San Francisco chapter now has its own initiative for 2012.

Next year's plan includes events, education and outreach to help promote the adoption of sustainable practices in Facilities Management. One element of the plan is the IFMA-SF Sustainability Minute, an opportunity for chapter members to participate in a short video recording at programs on a sustainability subject they know and believe in. The concept is to create an informal, informative and engaging one-minute talk on a specific issue and provide expert tips on what FMs should do to incorporate sustainable practices into their daily work lives. The videos will be promoted nationally through our chapter website and social media campaign. Accompanying the video, the featured speaker will also contribute to our blog. The blog post will expand on the video's subject with links to informational resources accompanied with a short bio.

A chapter Sustainability Committee has been formed to implement the Sustainability 2012 initiative. We welcome the participation of anyone who would like to help out. Our goal is to have IFMA-SF be a national leader in the drive to bring more sustainable practices to the profession of Facilities Management.

Richard Hodges

IFMA-SF Sustainability 2012 Chair

www.GreenIT.net

Thoughts on “Hoteling, Real Estate and the Evolution of Facilities” from an IFMA rookie

I am new to the Bay Area and to the San Francisco chapter of IFMA. Excited to get involved, I've joined the PR/Communications Chair headed up by Carmina Bacani. I attended October's program and assisted with event registration.

The program speakers, Nancy Ludlow of Corporate Real Estate, and David Meckley of Huntsman, gave a dual presentation on “Hoteling, Real Estate and the Evolution of Facilities.” As Nancy pointed out, the workforce is more mobile than ever; mobility is the norm. She used case studies from Pharma, IT and utility companies to illustrate how workplace culture is changing due to the nature of the real estate. The utility company example is especially interesting; being located in a historic building, there is minimal investment in technology and limited dollars in reconfiguration. In addition, most of the employees have to commute to the space, thus affecting work and culture.

David followed this with a presentation on the corporate reaction to mobile staffing. While some companies have no official policy on this issue, others are offering alternative locations, such as satellite suburb offices. Others, however, are completely revamping what the workspace looks like and what it provides. David’s presentation included several pictures of new workspaces, such as the “touchdown zone” (creating a coffee shop/airport lounge atmosphere in the office), the “home base” (having the smallest possible desks located very close together while creating other spaces to spend time), and “free addressing” (employees come in and work wherever they want whenever they want). The implications for facilities, he explained, is that they are now more open and adaptable with a smaller footprint, while the lines between workplace and residence have become blurred.


These presentations hit close to home for me for two reasons in particular. One is that I myself, am a very highly mobile worker; though I live in California, I am working for a professor at Penn State University. My workspace rotates between my bed, the living room couch, and Starbucks (not my favorite coffee perhaps, but the most reliable WiFi!). I have no real option of commuting into work, so the idea of the workplace has really been transformed for me. Additionally, as a human geographer by training, I’ve considered the reasons that particular companies locate in particular places (e.g. tech companies in Silicon Valley) and the implications of this, but have not thought much about how the actual real estate affects culture, productivity, collaboration, etc. I’m seeing a potential future dissertation topic…


Lauren M. Anderson

Sustainability Advocate
Fairfood International

Polk, Popos and Pedestrians: Exploring San Francisco a few blocks at a time.

Crown Zellerbach Paper Company Building, One Bush St. with the Shell Building, 100 Bush St. in its reflection

On Friday Sept 9th, San Francisco IFMA members and guests took a two hour, three block Architectural tour of downtown San Francisco. This walk was led by Architect, and "soon to be published" researcher Rick Evans.

Though we toured a geographically small area of San Francisco's Financial District, members and guests' were educated on the neighborhood's history. That is, if we look up! There is much significance left and imprinted in the building's facade when onlookers look beyond street level.

Mr. Evans lead us through a number of privately owned, public spaces known as POPOS, showing us how easy it is to walk a block above the street, and how this space requirements will be implemented into future City developments.

Also during the tour we were introduced to the architect Willis Polk whose work had many significant works in this area of downtown, most notably the Hallidie and Hobart buildings.

Mr. Evans ended our tour by leading us across Market Street to the soon to be Transbay Terminal. Envisioned as the Grand Central Station of the West, centerpiece to a car free Downtown, terminus for the California High Speed Rail. This station redevelopment project now being looked at by the whole world as the working model of new urban development.

Edward Cooke, LEED AP
Member of IFMA, San Francisco

The Sustainable FM.

Carbon Accounting 101

There it is, in your calendar in that shade of red that shouts ‘important’, a meeting scheduled to allocate tasks for Greenhouse Gas (GHG/C02) reporting! Grab a cup of coffee before the meeting; you’ll need to be well caffeinated going in. If this has already happened in your organization then you’ll know how much data mining this requires, and I’d love to hear about your experience (see begging note at the end).

Why do we need to report GHG (C02) emissions?

There are regulatory (Federal, State & International) reporting requirements, customer requirements, leadership requirements, voluntary reporting as a business efficiency metric and risk management issues (SEC 10K disclosure requirements) to name an important few. Whatever the drivers for reporting carbon emissions, a lot of the work usually falls to the facilities/real estate folks.

If you have not been asked yet, this is a great opportunity to get out in front of this. If you’re currently grappling with this issue I hope you gain something of benefit from this and future blogs.

As of January, 2010 over 3,000 global companies report to the CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project), the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) which rates companies by industry and sustainability performance and the FTSE4Good (Financial Times Stock Exchange index – UK) that rates companies for corporate responsibility and is used by ethical investors all over the world.

What do we need to report?

Under the GHG Protocol GHG emissions are expressed as tCO\2e.

t = metric tonnes (the metric system is used by the rest of the world, get over it)

CO2e = CO2 equivalent. This is the GWP (Global Warming Potential) as calculated and expressed as CO2 equivalency (e.g. 1 tonne of methane is equivalent to 21 tonnes of C02 (21 times more global warming potential) for an apple to apple comparison of various compounds.

There are six main GHG’s reported:

1. Carbon dioxide (CO2).


2. Methane (CH4).


3. Nitrous Oxide (N2O).


4. Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)


5. Perfluorocarbons (PFC)


6. Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)

Baseline Year:

All emission reporting starts from a baseline year. This may be given to you, if you have any input into the base year, pick a year where you have good data. You’ll never have all the data you need easily available. Ask yourself; how much refrigerant did you use in 2006 broken down by chemical type (e.g. Scope 1: R-134A is a Hydrofluorocarbon with a GWP of 5,000)? How much diesel fuel was used in 2004 for testing of your emergency generators (also Scope 1)? You see what I’m getting at?

If you’re lucky your utility will have automated your facility energy use; expressed in Kwh in Excel or a similar format going back 5 or more years. If you have facilities in other parts of the country and internationally, you may face additional challenges in getting the information. After doing this for nearly 5 years, getting accurate data is by far the biggest issue we see. FM departments need to start accumulating this data and archiving it in a format that is easily accessed and as up-dated as necessary. GHG reporting is usually done Q1/Q2 every year, and don’t think it’s going away any time soon. We’re seeing a push for much more granularity in the data collected. Is this a chance for you to shine even brighter?

Scope Boundaries:

When reporting voluntarily the organization gets to set the reporting boundaries (However; the standards are expected to increase year on year).

• Scope 1: Direct emissions at owned facilities usually from on-site generation or process (burning fossil fuel and/or emissions of chemicals). These are directly under the control of the organization, as you select the fuel source or chemicals used and you own the process (e.g. fleet vehicles that are owned are scope 1).


• Scope 2: These are usually indirect emissions, and electricity is the most common scope 2 reported. The utility selects the fuel source and as such the emission has to be calculated based on the fuel mix used in that region by that utility. However if you also manage travel as part of your scope of services; business travel is also scope 2 based on miles traveled and mode of transport (mostly jet and vehicle fuel).


• Scope 3: This is everything else. If you take a close look at the FM supply chain there are a great many items that impact your emissions. Scope 3 is the next step as we work towards reducing total emissions. Extra credit: Asking your suppliers for their GHG reports as part of the *procurement process sends a strong signal that you’re serious (sends the right message to your boss too).


• *Wal-Mart did this recently and it sent a strong message to their suppliers and greatly changed the way they used resources. The data so far indicates that there has been no increase in supplier costs or availability of products.

What next?

That’s where you come in. I need you to tell me what you want to hear about; is it carbon accounting 102, abatement strategies or other sustainability issues? I’ll be happy to group the questions into a sort of FAQ section of this blog, but in order to do that I need your FAQ’s. To prime the pump, I’ll incentivize you by offering a Starbucks gift card ($10) for the *best FM sustainability question. You’ll need the extra caffeine once you start down the GHG road.

*I will be the sole arbiter of the best question and my decision is final (unless my wife disagrees, then we’ll go with that).

Extra reading credits:

Carbon Disclosure Project: https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Pages/HomePage.aspx

Walmart / CDP: http://walmartstores.com/Sustainability/7759.aspx

Greenhouse Gas Initiative Protocol: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/

World Resources Institute GHG: http://www.wri.org/project/ghg-protocol

World Business Council on Sustainable Development: http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?type=p&MenuId=MTAxMQ&doOpen=1&ClickMenu=LeftMenu

Bruce Thorpe.

Bruce is a Senior Associate at WSP Sustainability & Energy http://www.wspenvironmental.com/ . He leads WSP’s Sustainable Real Estate and Workplace practice in North America and is based in San Francisco.

New CAL Green Code Requirements

San Francisco led the way for advanced green building codes in 2007 when then Mayor Gavin Newsom signed into law the city’s first green building ordinance for private buildings. Based on input from an industry task force, the ordinance referenced rigorous third-party verified green building rating systems (LEED and GreenPoint Rated) for new large commercial buildings, multifamily and single family residences, and major renovations. The rating systems not only offered robust and tested protocols for improved practices over code, but also provide recognized labels which could be used to market the developments to tenants and buyers.

That same year the California Building Standards Commission adopted the first iteration of the California Green Building Standards Code which became mandatory throughout the State on January 1, 2011. The very first of its kind, California staked out new ground for addressing environmental protection through building codes and raised the floor for the entire state.

All local jurisdictions in California are required to enforce the new Green Building Standards Code, now also known as “CALGreen.” Local jurisdictions are also able to enact more stringent requirements than those contained in the State Code where more stringent requirements are reasonably necessary and supported by “findings.”. While some cities have adopted CALGreen outright, San Francisco responded by adopting the CALGreen (including all mandatory measures), but amended the code to maintain the existing references to the rating systems. In addition to filing our local amendments with the Building Standards Commission, the City filed an application and study with the California Energy Commission to require modeled energy performance above the state’s strict energy code (a prerequisite in the rating systems that further maximize environmental benefits of the original ordinance).

One concern voiced by some in the green building community is that the new code will allow developers to market a development as “green” by building to code instead of the more rigorous rating systems, potentially creating marketplace confusion about the definition of a “green” building. Documenting compliance with both “code” and the “rating systems” may also have unintended consequences on the use of the rating systems. Another question relates to the ability of local building departments to thoroughly enforce the new code, especially as city budgets continue to shrink and time for continuing education, a keystone for all green building endeavors, is ever more difficult to obtain.

During this critical first year of statewide implementation, the City is working with the state, other local governments, nonprofits, and practitioners to monitor the impacts and progress of applying CALGreen, and will work with others to identify best practices as well as key information gaps and recommend other areas for improvement. However complicated things are now, it’s also an exciting time for policy innovations to green the built environment!

Richard Chien
Green Building Coordinator - San Francisco Environment
City and County of San Francisco
www.sfenvironment.org

Lighting Innovation - A Lighting Designer's Perspective

As a lighting designer and participant for February’s IFMA panel discussion entitled "Lighting Innovation - LED's or Fluorescents? I’d like to bring the perspective of a lighting designer to the discussion.

As lighting designers, our goal is to merge the most energy efficient technology with innovation and quality lighting in a space. While doing so, some things to consider are the occupant’s comfort, appropriate light levels, energy code requirements, energy saving goals and any specific client needs. If you are a perspective tenant or building owner, you will most likely work with designers to decide on the lighting for your space. Our panel discussion focused on LEDs and fluorescents and whether it was time to switch. With that in mind, I would like to discuss four things to consider when deciding on your new lighting system:

1. What is your budget?

Understand the budget for lighting in the space. An LED fixture will tend to have a greater upfront cost than compact fluorescent, fluorescent, or halogen sources of equal quality. The payback over a lifetime will frequently make the LED product cheaper in the end due to savings in energy usage and maintenance (cost of lamps & cost of changing the lamps). Use LEDs in areas where they are best suited and save the greatest amount of energy to get the highest return on investment.

2. What is the efficacy of the fixture?

Efficacy refers to lumens per watt.

• Linear fluorescent: 92 – 104 lumens per watt


• Compact fluorescent: 60 – 72 lumens per watt


• LED: 30 – 60 lumens per watt average (varies greatly, can be >100 or <30)


• Halogen: 13 to 18 lumens per watt

The efficacy for traditional lamps refers to the lumens per watt of the lamp only; fixture efficiency is not taken into account. The efficacy of the LED typically refers to the efficacy of the entire fixture. So the list above is not exactly comparing apples to apples.

LEDs bring a substantial energy reduction when replacing halogen and incandescent sources. When replacing linear and compact fluorescent products, you must compare the statistics of the individual products to determine which will save more energy.

3. How will the fixture be used?

LEDs and fluorescents are by nature two very different types of sources. An LED is a point source, while a fluorescent emits light in all directions. This distinction lends LEDs to be better at directing all of their lumens into a single general direction, but not as good at providing a more ambient light effect without proper lensing. Manufacturers have been using this to their advantage creating lenses that put the light exactly where it is needed. As this technology is further developed, it could greatly change the fixtures we see today.

Some common uses for LEDs:

• Downlights
• Wallwashers
• Retrofits for incandescent PAR lamps
• Small cove uplights
• Undercabinet lights
• Small details where a fluorescent or any other source would not fit

At this point, it is still more common to use linear fluorescents for linear office pendants, recessed 2x4s, 2x2s, and 1x4s. These types of fixtures tend to be the main light source in a space, requiring them to provide a high light level. Linear fluorescents tend to be capable of producing more lumens or higher amounts of light than LEDs. As LED manufacturers produce higher wattage LEDs and fixture manufacturers further develop technologies to direct the light, we will be seeing more fixtures ready to complete with the fluorescent fixtures. There are some great ones on the market today, but the selection is limited.

4. See a Sample!

The point I can most stress is that not all LED products are created equal. Whenever considering an LED product, make sure to review a sample first so you know what you are getting.

When reviewing a sample, look for the following qualities:

• Color of the light - is it acceptable? It can vary greatly from product to product.


• Color consistency – do all LEDs in a fixture appear to be the same?


• Color comparison with other fixtures in the space. Are you using multiple fixtures that all have a 3000K color temperature? Does the light look similar between each fixture?

Lighting Designers use both LEDs and fluorescents on a daily basis, and typically end up with a combination of fluorescent and LED lighting in commercial spaces. LEDs have been improving by leaps and bounds and we are continuously seeing new and exciting products that are changing the field of lighting. However, don’t think fluorescents are sitting on the sidelines waiting for LEDs to surpass them. New technologies for distributing and controlling fluorescent light are being further developed creating fixtures that are 90 - 95% efficient; that is hard to beat from an energy standpoint. LEDs are changing the way people think about lighting and they are forcing other aspects of the lighting community to keep developing their technologies as well. It’s an interesting time in the lighting community. I hope the list above helps you make some decisions when developing a new space or deciding to retrofit an old one. I wish you luck on any future ventures!

Lisa Kramer
Senior Lighting Designer
h.e. banks + associates Lighting Design
www.hebanks.com

February 10th, 2011 - Lighting Innovation

I thought I was reasonably knowledgeable about new lighting technology and its role in energy consumption in commercial buildings. The recent chapter program on Lighting Innovation taught me otherwise. What I learned in that session alone justified our annual membership.

Richard Hodges, Principal
GreenIT

New Member Lunch - January 28th, 2011

A special thanks to our Membership Chairwoman, Robyn Isom, for planning such an organized and well executed lunch to welcome our new members to the San Francisco Chapter. The luncheon at the Belden Taverna drew industry associates, board members and Facility Managers representing various industries from software, education, health care to government. Everyone at the table was given the spotlight to introduce themselves along with their affiliated companies. The private venue space was perfect for our 25 attendees which allowed for engaging conversations accompanied by good food and attentive service. We hope to see the continued energy and enthusiasm from all participants at upcoming programs and/or events!

2011 Programs Kickoff - Bowling at Presidio Bowl

What better way to kick off the New Year than with fellow IFMA SF chapter members at our annual bowling event in the Presidio's historic bowling alley! As Hospitality Chair for the board, I was pleased to meet some last minute bowling enthusiasts who joined in on the fun. All 22 bowlers teamed up and wore their IFMA paraphernalia - which included baseball caps and pins - proudly. Plenty of food and sugar from our kick-off cake gave us all energy to consistently strike the pins or gutter the ball. It was a great time to burn off the holiday calories and build camaraderie all around.

Thank you to my fellow Education and Co-Chair committees in organizing this fun filled and well attended event!

Carmina Bacani

IFMA SF Hospitality Chair